Timber Harvesting Should Not Be Sustainable

[@thetimberlandinvestor]

🌲Get my free guide to DIY forest Management: thetimberlandinvestor.com/how-to-read-your-forest-an-intro-to-diy-forest-management 🍁Join SilviCultural for FREE today: silvicultural.com/sign-up/

[@kiryaka]

Super useful info, but super weird general definition and conclusion. sustainability is a set of practices that allows maintaining the desired balance in a system. your "robust" approach is exactly that - it is one of the implementations of sustainability that you are favor. You described problems with other implementations of sustainability, that other people suggests and probably you right, but wrong implementation doesn't really makes the concept bad. Forestry definitely should be done in a way that maintains the balance of some sort - and that is the very definition of sustainability

[@upstatenewyorker9684]

Great timing on the video, I was just talking with a forester recently about the volume I can sustainably remove of my white pine stands while maintaining the volume and improve the quality over time. I’ve watch most of your videos over the last couple weeks. Very informative, educational and helpful as I have taken a deep interest in managing my 300 acres for wildlife habitat (grouse) forest products and recreation.

[@thetimberlandinvestor]

I'm glad you are finding them useful. Good luck with your land management!

[@alexmills1329]

There’s a rule of humanity about as soon as a method becomes a measurement of success, it stops being a good measurement for that success as we will manipulate all the other variables around increasing that one and lose the larger picture. I forget what it’s called.

[@maartineriksson]

Something that also is extremely important to use as a variable in the "sustainable equation" is biological/ecological values in the forest in question. For example if the forest is located in a sensitive area with a fragile ecological system, you can't harvest at all or you can only harvest small amounts. If you harvest "sustainable" but it results in big ecology shifts in a large area, it is not sustainable. So basically, sustainability and robustness must also take the nature values with ecology - which are different for each case of applications to timber harvest - into consideration in order to be properly sustainable/robust.

[@JS-jh4cy]

All the forest trimmings make the future soil and fungi growth system that helps keep the biggest trees alive better

[@trenomas1]

It's not "Inventory". It's "Resource Base". This is a far more complex system than diameter or cords per acre. To put this into context. Mushroom spores literally seed clouds and cause precipitation. If you are managing a million acres (mind boggling), then you have the capacity to influence weather, crop yields, and ground water for miles. Sustainability is real. If people struggle to define it, that's because it's devilishly complex. But I believe if we grow to improve the resource base(diversity, mineral content in soils, water tables), then we will continue to have more to harvest.

[@TreesAreNeat567]

The question of managing forests for maximum sustained yield vs maximum sustained yield adjusted for resiliency to fire, drought, and beetles is currently a hot topic in the Sierras of California as the current state mandated post harvest stocking standards may be too high and create future forest conditions that increase the severity of fires and drought stress in the summer.

[@trenomas1]

Agreed. I think the capacity for resilience is key. Doesn't matter how much wood you're growing if it goes up in smoke.

[@iii-ei5cv]

Ok... apologies for being "that commenter", but I'm really digging your videos and your presentation. So I'd like to reinforce what I think are very good ideas: "Sustainable" in timber industry terminology appears to revolve around making sure value can always be extracted from a forest year after year. What I understand as your issue with that term and how it is achieved is that it leads to an approach which is not really optimal for two reasons: 1. It relies on linear--izing non-linear forest growth processes so that you'll always have errors in the basis for what is calculated to be harvestable 2. the calculations determining sustainable harvest ignore aspects of forest growth that have a real impact on cost/distribution of reward on an annual basis And instead you propose what is actually desirable to have is a "robust" strategy which I'll define as having the following characteristics: 1. "Robustness" is "sustainable" in the common understanding of the word "sustainable", but is being differentiated from what the industry accepts to be "sustainable" 2. A "robust" strategy is one that eliminates or minimizes the errors introduced by using linear models to approximate systems that are inherently non-linear (this should be particularly appealing for small-scale timber investors) 3. A "robust" solution like the one proposed appears to have the property of minimizing annual fluctuations of cost/profit, where you are producing a consistent amount of a particular product (100 year old lumber) and avoiding the varying cost of harvesting older trees one year and a higher volume of younger trees the next Again, I love your videos and only offer this as a defense of what I think is already excellent content

[@hugegamer5988]

Sustainability: when you’re skeptical that old wood will look good stained.

[@DropCapitals]

I'm really enjoying your videos and you are actually inspiring me to get into this line of work. I'm an arborist from the UK and I have Permanent Resident status in Canada. Do you have any suggestions for educational routes to take?

[@homestead.smallholding]

I can't help but go for it man, I'm a UK resident with an Aussie passport but a mortgage, kid and desk job so that window may have passed!

[@liamhenderson1328]

You should apply to a community college that offers a forestry technician program, especially if you’re in Ontario as there are a couple of good schools. Tuition is fairly inexpensive and you gain hands-on knowledge of modern forestry practices and silviculture.

[@evemarie1605]

​@@liamhenderson1328 Try Algonquin CC in Pembroke or Sandford Fleming CC in Peterborough or perhaps check out the community colleges in North Bay, Sudbury, Sault Ste Marie, Thunder Bay, Timmins and also the universities in Thunder Bay and Sault Ste Marie which have university forestry programs. Also you might contact the Ontario Woodlot Association and Forests Ontario for advice and guidance. Dash it all man, just use your forefinger and your mouse and click your way to the future on the Internet! 🙂

[@evemarie1605]

Btw, Murray Bros sawmill in Madawaska is looking for night-shift mill hands to help them cut all that local timber which they are converting into sticks and boards to ship to IKEA.

[@InTheWoodyard]

I totally agree, very well done. Trees are the worlds most renewable resource.

[@burtonkent4549]

You seem to be confusing sustainability with a fixed target for harvest. Just because the answer to most questions is "it depends" doesn't mean that it's a failure. Your robust concept qualifies as sustainable, and I like it, it's less subject to variation and "it depends".

[@___PK__]

You need to take a baseline growth model and update it over time for a specific. i.e. perturb the curve with new inventory info and use a forgetting factor.

[@___PK__]

Also, I agree with your description of 'harvest 1% per year' BUT private owners are often driven by having a beautiful woodland as a whole (you did mention smaller tracts). Anyway, V, V interesting!!

[@Surreal616]

Grass clippings are good for mulch on garden beds. The clippings provide nitrogen, hold in moisture, build up the soil, and block weeds.

[@m8s4lif]

Here is something to think about. If you had that1,000,000 acres and harvested 20% of volume on 1/10 of it each year, then you would be harvesting about 2% of the total volume. If you could somehow harvest only the most mature trees without harming the other trees, {Good luck on that} you would only need to harvest about 10% of the trees on each track of forest to get 20% of the volume. {well maybe} If you could somehow manage to harvest them without damaging the other trees, the average age of the trees at harvest would be somewhere around 100 years old. Of course this would depend upon the growth curve of those trees. Now good luck on harvesting those trees without damaging the other trees. Anyway, something to think about.

[@chevy1221]

Random question: Does the forest soil get slowly depleted after decades and centuries of harvests? Like when you burn wood you get left with a bit of minerals in the form of ash, which were removed from the soil where the tree grew. Obviously the mineral removal from logging must be extremely slow and hard to measure, but do you think this will become an issue in the far far future?

[@thetimberlandinvestor]

This has been the subject of intensive study, particularly in Scandinavia where they have more deficient soils and intensive management spanning centuries. Basically, the vast majority of nutrients a tree can provide are in the twigs and leaves, which are left in the forest. The wood fiber itself has very little nutrients in it. Now over 1000 years could intensive management still have an impact? It's possible, but again, forests grew from bare rock over 10,000 years after the ice age. They are more resilient than we think.

[@NorthernGoshawk]

Seems like the answer to 'What is sustainability?" would simply be MSY (maximum sustainable yield). I wonder why this term isn't standard and common in forestry vs, say, fisheries?

[@JS-jh4cy]

Older trees depending on species are more valuable and better growth rates then smaller younger trees, the older trees force the other trees to reach for sky and sit around getting fat and short over the years

[@mattset9335]

Uhh you are wrong about "The Problem". A lot of hardwood species (the oaks in particular) grow faster after reaching "old growth" status. Harvard foresters have found out that their old growth white oaks are growing faster at 40" +DBH's than when they were 20" DBH. This is probably true for most tree species but since there is less than 1 percent of old growth forests in the USA left it is hard to determine. The solution to your video is encourage property owners to hold off from harvesting until forests grow bigger through tax break incentives. This will diminish log supply, increase timber prices and help stand diversity and sustainability.

[@thetimberlandinvestor]

As a tree gets larger in diameter, it takes less growth ring width to equal equivalent amounts of volume accumulation. So yes, it is true that very large trees can be growing quickly, but this is only true of long-lived species. Importantly, mapped over the tree's entire life, it still follows the sigmoid curve. But the vast majority of species in the US aren't as long lived as oak, and we have to be looking at the aggregate of growth across the stand. One of the most commercially important species in Maine, balsam fir, really pushes it past 60 years old, and if a landowner wanted to keep their balsam fir to 60 years of age, they'd probably have to accept negative stand growth rates towards the end as mortality exceeds growth of remaining trees. So while I do agree landowners need to keep trees growing longer, it's a complex problem that involves tax rates, faulty financial philosophies and analyses, and also the dynamics of the forest itself.

[@mattset9335]

@@thetimberlandinvestor Your in Maine. Oh boy. The land of pulp. Have you ever tried planting Sitka spruce? It grows faster than any native eastern-northern conifer species. It out competes Norway Spruce in Norway.

[@trenomas1]

Yeah. West coast forest species are practically immortal, and they still use these metrics and often log by removing the oldest specimens. In general, leaving the oldest trees can give a head start to the youngest. While in places you may have too many old growth standards. Forest growth is wayyy more contextual than these measurements can express.

[@evemarie1605]

Yes, in Norway Sitka spruce was actually declared to be an invasive noxious weed and banned from the country!@@mattset9335

[@evemarie1605]

British Columbia in particular and Canada in general is a major cause of low global timber prices and especially in softwoods because the various provincial governments practically give away public forests for free to feed corrupt sawmill companies which know how to pay bribes and greedy forest-worker unions which use political agitation to pressure provincial politicians to let them cut even old-growth mountain forests on mountain sides that are slightly on this side of vertical. The ultra-corrupt ex-Communist European governments are even worse though.@@trenomas1

[@upstatenewyorker9684]

Located in eastern foothills of the Adirondacks western Clinton County/eastern Franklin County

[@maddin95k1]

As you said you are not over thinking it, you are just thinking it all the way through. Not thinking this sustainability thing through, has led to tons of houses being insulated with styrofoam which is made from a finite resource in order to become independent of the very same resource. Leaving us with a mountain of trash for the decades to come. I also wonder how "robust" outsourcing you food production to some fake meat factory is over just eating the cow.

[@JS-jh4cy]

You always leave a bug and insect magnet trees in your forest, so they eat the few dying trees and hardly bother much with the living healthy trees,

[@JS-jh4cy]

Then birds 🐦 will eat the bugs in the few dying trees

[@timkirkpatrick9155]

Boo! The avoidance end is type conversion by shift to mono culture.

[@JS-jh4cy]

Autocorrect ... and not sit ...

[@Tobeman29]

Yeah…not agreeing with you.

[@rodfrey]

Thanks for your well-reasoned position.